Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[NKP_Vet]

The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York Uni­versity was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is in­tended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy un­dertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representa­tive American scholars in different callings. They are most­ly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.

[rockrr]

I still trust FReeper sanity...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "My recollection is that the bulk of them were still slave states at the time.
I think Massachusetts was the only one that had gone full abolition, and they used a bullsh*t liberal legal trick to even manage that."

Right, Massachusetts outlawed slavery in their Constitution and reported no slaves in the 1790 census.
By 1787 only New York (1800) and New Jersey (1804) had not begun abolition in the North.

[jeffersondem]

“I’m assuming everyone knows the significance of May 6, 1861 and my guess is that, like jeffersondem, DiogenesLamp won’t touch this one with a ten foot pole.”

I’m guessing right about now you would rather talk about anything other than who was responsible for saying Founding Fathers “yapped like a dog.”

[DiogenesLamp]

"My concern is that some hapless and unwitting FReeper will read and believe your lies."

My concern is that so many people will continue believing the lies about the Civil War we have all been taught, primarily among them is that the war was about slavery.

The war was about Washington DC controlling the economic production from the states producing the vast majority of the International trade.

The war was about money, and who was going to control the flow of it.

Same D@mn thing happening in New York and Washington DC today. Same sort of people trying to enrich themselves by the production of others.

[DiogenesLamp]

“I’m assuming everyone knows the significance of May 6, 1861 and my guess is that, like jeffersondem, DiogenesLamp won’t touch this one with a ten foot pole.”

I’m guessing right about now you would rather talk about anything other than who was responsible for saying Founding Fathers “yapped like a dog.”

Who cares about May 6th? Lincoln had already started his war. Nothing subsequent to early April matters, because the sailing of that war fleet was the trigger for the war.

Why did Lincoln start the war? Because the South was producing the bulk of European trade, and the influence cartels of New York and Washington DC wanted to keep funneling that money through their own pockets.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I’m guessing right about now you would rather talk about anything other than who was responsible for saying Founding Fathers “yapped like a dog.”"

That would be jeffersondem here #457, then reinforced here, here, here and several more, doing your usual job distorting and weaponizing for purposes of changing the subject.
HandyDandy addressed your abuse with a wonderful smackdown, here but it had no effect, you kept right on at it, couldn't let go of it.

Now you need a weapon to change the subject and beat back a question impossible for any Lost Causer to answer: Should Union troops have returned fugitive slaves to their Confederate "masters", before or after May 6, 1861?

So I think HandyDandy's smackdown of jeffersondem is worth revisiting here:

jeffersondem: "I hope that I did not do wrong.“

HandyDandy: "You tell me.
Even after BJK stated: ” . . . I’ll cheerfully grant your claim — if indeed you do so claim — that not all Democrats were/are perfidious to the Constitution all the time.” you kept up your haranguing.
You made a spectacle out of yourself, man.
You took it upon yourself to declare that everything BJK stated about “Democrats” was specifically aimed at James Madison.
Then you incessantly, maniacally, berated him for what he “said about James Madison”.
You even had BJK saying that James Madison was yapping like a dog (which you know is not what BJK actually said).
Only you know if you did not do wrong.
You did represent yourself as a drama queen.
That much I can tell you."

Later HandyDandy (#505) admitted to jeffersondem: "Yes, I realize now that that can be interpreted to mean that “Madison yapped like a dog”.
But only by someone like you. "

Right, those are jeffersondem's words, not mine.
My point was to memorably distinguish (metaphor) between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but obviously, in the distorting hands of jeffersondem, the point was not worth the effort to make it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Who cares about May 6th?
Lincoln had already started his war."

So answer my question: should Union troops have returned fugitive slaves to their Confederate "masters" either before or after May 6, 1861?

[DiogenesLamp]

So answer my question: should Union troops have returned fugitive slaves to their Confederate "masters" either before or after May 6, 1861?

In a war, you give nothing to the enemy. But was this a "war" or was this a "rebellion"? If it was just a "rebellion" as Lincoln claimed, then all captured property should be held till hostilities were over so that ownership could be adjudicated.

In a "rebellion" you cannot assume that all people in the rebelling territory are "rebels." Some of them may be loyalists who just happened to be in the territory the "Rebels" seized. This was certainly the case in the American War of Independence. All debts and property were then adjudicated by courts after it was over.

"Wars" are against foreign powers who do not fall under US Constitutional law. All those who do, meaning all the "rebelling" territories, should still have that law applied to them.

Lincoln's insistence on regarding the Confederates as still part of the nation should have required him to continue to apply constitutional protections to all those citizens who may have been trapped in rebel held territories. Assuming all American citizens in captured territories were part of the rebellion was a denial of due process to large numbers of American citizens that may have remained loyal.

[jeffersondem]

“Lincoln’s insistence on regarding the Confederates as still part of the nation should have required him to continue to apply constitutional protections to all those citizens who may have been trapped in rebel held territories. Assuming all American citizens in captured territories were part of the rebellion was a denial of due process to large numbers of American citizens that may have remained loyal.”

I have to agree with you on this.

[jeffersondem]

“Except EVERY slaver.”

In context you were saying here Lincoln was morally superior to every “slaver.”

Yet Mr. Lincoln asked a “slaver” - Robert E. Lee to lead the northern armies.

And Mr. Lincoln actually was able to enlist the services of U.S. Grant who was the head-of-household where slaves toiled.

I have to ask, how many slavers did Mr. Lincoln have on the payroll?

We know that the slave state of Delaware sent troops to fight the slave state of North Carolina “to free the slaves.”

We know the slave state of Maryland sent troops to fight the slave state of Virginia “to free the slaves.”

We know the slave state of Kentucky sent troops to fight the slave state of Tennessee to “free the slaves.”

We know the slave state of Missouri sent troops to fight the slave state of Arkansas to “free the slaves.”

We know the slave state of West Virginia sent troops . . .

Mr. Lincoln wasn’t so moral that he could not work hand in glove with “slavers.” But probably only because it was in his - and his backers - own economic and political and military best self-interest.

[rockrr]

Irrelevant dodge.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "My concern is that so many people will continue believing the lies about the Civil War we have all been taught, primarily among them is that the war was about slavery."

Of course it was, but nobody ever claimed Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 was "all about slavery".
And everyone acknowledges some people were concerned about other minor issues, like tariffs.
And it's pretty obvious that Confederates, having once declared both secession and war against the United States were not going to give it up while they still had means to fight.

But the role of slavery was central in secession and in Union policies regarding Contraband, Confiscation, Emancipation, enlistment of colored regiments, and the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
All of those were about slavery.

DiogenesLamp: "The war was about Washington DC controlling the economic production from the states producing the vast majority of the International trade."

In your 21st century Marxist mind, obviously, and possibly even in the top 1% of 1% at the time.
But no majority will go to war over such concerns.
They will fight & die over issues more vital to them at the time, like preserving the Union and abolishing slavery.

DiogenesLamp: "The war was about money, and who was going to control the flow of it."

Except absolutely nobody at the time said that.

DiogenesLamp: "Same D@mn thing happening in New York and Washington DC today.
Same sort of people trying to enrich themselves by the production of others."

My goodness, you really are a Marxist, aren't you?
So why do you post on a Conservative site?
You think there's an untapped market for Marxism here?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In a war, you give nothing to the enemy.
But was this a "war" or was this a "rebellion"?
If it was just a "rebellion" as Lincoln claimed..."

But on May 6, 1861 Confederates formally declared war on the United States.
For purposes of this discussion, at least, why should we not believe them?

DiogenesLamp: "...then all captured property should be held till hostilities were over so that ownership could be adjudicated.
In a "rebellion" you cannot assume that all people in the rebelling territory are 'rebels.' "

Right, and did you not know that after the war the United States paid reparations to Southerners who suffered war related damages.
They had only to prove they were not Confederates and had supported the Union to collect.
The US government paid millions of dollars for thousands of such claims.

DiogenesLamp: "Some of them may be loyalists who just happened to be in the territory the "Rebels" seized.
This was certainly the case in the American War of Independence.
All debts and property were then adjudicated by courts after it was over."

As agreed to in negotiations by the victorious American and the defeated British governments.
The Civil War was different, including: terms were Unconditional Surrender and there was no defeated government.
Confederates could have negotiated such terms, as late as early 1865 but chose to fight on to Unconditional Surrender.

DiogenesLamp: ""Wars" are against foreign powers who do not fall under US Constitutional law.
All those who do, meaning all the "rebelling" territories, should still have that law applied to them. "

So, here's your big, big, big big problem, pal: you want it both ways.
For purposes of adjudicating treason, you want to say, "oh, no, no, not treason because Confederates were a different country, dontcha know."
But for any other purpose you wish to claim they were all just good old US citizens and so must be treated with every Constitutional consideration.

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln's insistence on regarding the Confederates as still part of the nation should have required him to continue to apply constitutional protections to all those citizens who may have been trapped in rebel held territories. "

That's a interesting legal interpretation.
Can you cite cases in US law, from that time, which support it?

Of course, Unionist regions of Confederate states were protected against Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation:
Map of areas affected & protected from Emancipation Proclamation:

Bottom line: the Union did what it could to protect and compensate Southern Unionists for their Civil War losses.
Former Confederates, not so much.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I have to agree with you on this."

Note my response above.

[OIFVeteran]

I think the states rebelling had a little something to do with triggering the war. No rebellion, no war.

[OIFVeteran]

You know, maybe the Lamp is right. I mean there were all those marching songs by US troops like “keep all the southern tariffs” and “we’ll get all the cotton when the war is over.” I even think John Browns body had a verse about Tariffs, right?

[rockrr]

I believe the full title was “We’ll get all the cotton when the war is over, but keep your negroes to yourselves”

;’}

[OIFVeteran]

LOL. I hereby declare that you win the internet for today for that comment.

[jeffersondem]

“Now you need a weapon to change the subject and beat back a question impossible for any Lost Causer to answer: Should Union troops have returned fugitive slaves to their Confederate “masters”, before or after May 6, 1861?”

I don’t know how many times you have asked this but each time the question seems to be accompanied by increased agitation and hostility. And I don’t know why.

Your previous instructions to me (post #132) were: “So what do you think, jeffersondem: should fugitive slaves be returned to countries or states at war against the United States? Think long & hard before you answer, FRiend.”

I have been doing just as instructed: thinking long and hard before I answer. I will continue to think long . . . perhaps very long since this is a question you insist is impossible for me to answer.

[rockrr]

I’m not sure that I understand your compulsion to call for witnesses to your non-responsive response....but whatever.